Iím going to play a Witch Hunter warband in our ongoing Mordheim campaign. Iíve played them in a few games but never for a long period of time. Although they are limited in numbers, the large range of skills open to their heroes looks like an advantage Ė particularly quick-firing crossbowmen and pistoliers.

My question is the perennial one about war dogs and zealots. Iíve always liked the fluff around zealots but been put off by their stat line. Sure, they gain experience but, with good rolls, theyíll struggle to be better than a wardog. The wardog starts out with a better M, WS, S, I. The zealot could improve its WS, S, and I and maybe get 2 attacks, if you rolled well. The zealot can use equipment which gives him something of an edge but heíll never be much good with a bow unfortunately. He can wear armour if you have the money and that may be viable (we play a house rule that shields give a 5+ save).

The main advantage seems to be that a zealot could become a hero and that might be better than a flagellant hero (he can wear armour, use missile weapons). Flagellant henchmen seem like theyíd be viable even late in a campaign because of the high S and T.

What do you think? Iíd love some advice from those who have played witch hunters.

Itís a pity witch hunters canít have 15 warband members because I really like the war dog models too! The whole witch hunter model range is great really.

I say it depends on the campaign you are playing. Is it just a couple of free-standing scenarios, the zealots probably wont be given much time to gather XP, in which case the wardogs are a better choice. However, in a long game, a henchman group able of levelling is the obvious choice every time. Getting a sixth hero is a GREAT benefit! I do, however, like to take two of each, not only for the fluff of my captain having two loyal dogs, but also for some cheap cannon fodder troops, that still kicks a lot of ass (S4 is never to be trifled with!). Cheap backup, in other words.

Generally Henchmen that can gain Exp are better then ones that don't. The main reason is LGT, also like you said gaining more attacks, and other stat bumps.

Also Flagellant's can become heroes they just cannot lead the warband. If I am remembering correctly.

Whenever I have played I notice that the none exp gainers are better early on, but henchmen that gain Exp surpass them. So I usually do a mix, and then as the non-exp gainers die I replace them with Exp gainers.

With my Witch Hunters, I started out basic, and went for numbers to start. I went with 3 Flagellants with flails and 2 Warhounds for Henchmen. With the Flails I still get to strike first when charging and get a +2S in the first round or. Charge first hit with a 6S is nice. The hope is that will take out the opponent or at least make them not being able to hit back. I would make the Warhounds take point and they would be charged first. Then I could charge in with the Flagellants and get the first hit.

Yeah, Played them a lot, and only used zealots the first time around, they die too fast to even gain stat increases or become heroes... not too impressed by them.

My tactics revolved around flagelants, and dogs. I keep my heroes to the back, increasing their statlines throughout the early games, while the flagelants and dogs (both serious statlines for their cost) beat the crap out of the other starting warbands. Then later on, my heroes will have some new stats and skills, and I outfit them with serious equipment, and they'll have a hard time dieing, and kick ass, with some easily replaced henchmen still going strong. (flagelants and dogs that is)

so yeah, even though I prefer zealots fluff-wise, I never use them...(we are working on making them more appealing in our WitchHeim project, so I might have to paint up some new zealots )

Thanks everyone. I have a few hounds and just one zealot for now. If he progresses well I'll keep him. Otherwise I'll drop him and stay with the dogs. Either way, I'll work towards 5 flagellants and 6 heroes.